Capitalist Myths
The Invisible Hand of the Market The invisible hand is a theory contrived by the economist Adam Smith. In a free market, Smith claimed, an individual pursuing his own self-interest will also promote the good of his community as a whole. Each individual maximizing income for himself will maximize the total revenue of society as a whole.
| | Laissez-faire A theory contrived by eighteenth century French economists such as Saint-Simon that the market should not be regulated by the state. A capitalist myth maintaining that private initiative and profit are best provided a minimum of economic interventionism and taxation by the state beyond what is necessary to maintain individual liberty, peace, security, and property rights.
| 
| Other Capitalist Myths
- "Free trade is the only way to order international commerce"
- "Capitalists should pay little or no tax because they are the engine of the economy"
- "Unemployment and poverty are natural, inevitable afflictions in any economic system"
- "The United States has the right to attack any nation which threatens the economic interests of its rulers"
- "Economic efficiency is only possible under capitalism"
- "All manufacturing, public utilities, and commodities should be privately owned"
- "Capitalists ought to be able to make as much money as they can, no matter what the plight of the workers"
- "All things are working together for the best in this best of all capitalist worlds"
|
| |
Under the capitalist "wage slave" system you don't receive the full compensation for your work. By the very nature of the employer-employee relationship, you get less compensation than you should, because the employer takes excessive profits. Let's take a look at how this happens by examining a very simple example of an exchange.
 The raw material to produce a sack of ground wheat, let's say, costs $1.00
 The means of production costs $2.00
 The owner of the means of production pays you $1.00 for your labor
 The owner sells the sack of ground wheat for $8.00
 Your labor has turned $1.00 dollar of wheat plus $2.00 in production costs plus $1.00 for your labor, into a commodity which is sold for $8.00. The profit is $4.00 or 100%. The owner of the means of production makes 400% more in profit than you do, plus he owns and can sell the means of production whenever he wants.
| The ratio of average chief executive pay to worker
pay was 431 to 1 in 2004, up from 301 to 1 in 2003. | | | | | |
The stark reality of "wage slavery" is that the owners of the means of production (capitalists) are now taking the jobs of American workers to chattel labor nations such as China, Mexico, and many others. The owners want to pay even less for labor than they now are and they want cheaper production costs as well. They don't care if the workers in these other countries are in literal bondage to their overseers, as in Asian sweatshops. And they certainly don't have any concern if American workers become destitute and homeless.
According to the US Census Bureau, 35.9 million Americans live below the poverty line, including 12.9 million children. As defined by the government and updated for inflation using the Consumer Price Index, the average poverty threshold for a family of four in 2004 was $19, 307; for a family of three, $15,067; and for a family of two, $12,334.
Instead of capitalism insuring that the economy works for the good of all citizens, capitalists make sure they receive at least 800 times what the average workers receives.
When capitalist corruption leads to losses for banks and companies:
The Capitalist Coach
"By way of attempting to give the reader some general impression
of the way people lived together in those days, and
especially of the relations of the rich and poor to one another,
perhaps I cannot do better than to compare society as it then
was to a prodigious coach which the masses of humanity were
harnessed to and dragged toilsomely along a very hilly and sandy
road. The driver was hunger, and permitted no lagging, though
the pace was necessarily very slow. Despite the difficulty of
drawing the coach at all along so hard a road, the top was
covered with passengers who never got down, even at the
steepest ascents. These seats on top were very breezy and
comfortable. Well up out of the dust, their occupants could
enjoy the scenery at their leisure, of the coach persons were
slipping out of them and falling to theor critically discuss the merits
of the straining team. Naturally such places were in great
demand and the competition for them was keen, every one
seeking as the first end in life to secure a seat on the coach for
himself and to leave it to his child after him. By the rule of the
coach a man could leave his seat to whom he wished, but on the
other hand there were many accidents by which it might at any
time be wholly lost. For all that they were so easy, the seats were
very insecure, and at every sudden
jolt ground, where they were
instantly compelled to take
hold of the rope and help to drag
the coach on which they
had before ridden so pleasantly. It
was naturally regarded
as a terrible misfortune to lose one's seat,
and the
apprehension that this might happen to them or their
friends was a constant cloud upon the
happiness of those who
rode.
"But did they think only of themselves?
you ask. Was not their
very luxury rendered
intolerable to them by comparison with the
lot
of their brothers and sisters in the harness, and
the knowledge
that their own weight added to their
toil? Had they no
compassion for fellow beings from
whom fortune only distinguished
them? Oh, yes; com-
miseration was frequently expressed
by those who rode for
| those who had to pull the coach,
especially when the vehicle came to a bad place in the road, as it
was constantly doing, or to a particularly steep hill. At such
times, the desperate straining of the team, their agonized leaping
and plunging under the pitiless lashing of hunger, the many who
fainted at the rope and were trampled in the mire, made a very
distressing spectacle, which often called forth highly creditable
displays of feeling on the top of the coach. At such times the
passengers would call down encouragingly to the toilers of the
rope, exhorting them to patience, and holding out hopes of
possible compensation in another world for the hardness of their
lot, while others contributed to buy salves and liniments for the
crippled and injured. It was agreed that it was a great pity that
the coach should be so hard to pull, and there was a sense of
general relief when the specially bad piece of road was gotten
over. This relief was not, indeed, wholly on account of the team,
for there was always some danger at these bad places of a general
overturn in which all would lose their seats.
|
From Edward Bellamy, Looking Backward
| |
|